Unarmed exchange student killed by homeowner

[Pogo]

Meanwhile...

>> Montana Representative Ellie Boldman Hill, a Democrat from Missoula, said Dede's death has prompted her to draft legislation that would strip the law of stand-your-ground provisions.

"Whether it's Trayvon Martin or the tragic killing of this student, it's not the American system of justice for a single individual to act as judge, jury and executioner," Hill said.

The slain teenager's father, Celal Dede, expressed similar sentiments to the German news agency DPA.

"I've not once thought that everyone here (in the United States) can shoot someone only because a person was in their yard," Dede told DPA in an interview cited by Der Spiegel magazine.

"America can't continue to play the cowboy here," Dede said, according to Der Spiegel.

Gary Marbut, president of Montana Shooting Sports Association, said he would oppose any such measure.

"I see no evidence to suggest this law is not doing what it's designed to do," Marbut said.

Julia Reinhardt, spokeswoman for the German Consulate in San Francisco, said a parallel investigation into the death is being conducted in Hamburg.

"We expected justice will be done to make it clear that an unarmed 17-year-old German citizen cannot be killed for simply entering a garage," she said. << --Montana Lawmaker Vows To Repeal Self-Defense Law After German Teen's Death​

 

[Ernie S.]

No, I'm trying to pitch that each scenario needs to be treated differently.

Agreed.


Unless the guy with the hoodie is snacking on skittles and iced tea.


If it's pitch-dark, you really don't know. And, if there's no cover to hunker-down behind, and you're out in the open, awaiting whatever comes out of that pitch-dark void, then it may make sense to pull the trigger. I dunno.


Of course I see how that works.

I would like to think that I would have called the cops (or yelled over my shoulder to have the wife call the cops as I headed outside), and hunkered-down in the driveway, cocked-and-locked, before deciding to (a) wait it out or (b) issue a voice-challenge.

But we don't know whether the guy was out-in-the-open or hunkered-down behind cover, we don't know what vague shapes and motions he might have seen or sensed from the pitch-dark void of the open garage door, we don't know what he heard (if anything) in the moment(s) before pulling the trigger, etc. It's also possible that the guy was scared out of his wits and was in Neanderthal-Defensive-Mode and eliminated the potential threat before it could manifest; not entirely in possession of his own faculties at the moment of truth.

Exactly, a salient point which relates directly to the voluntary manslaughter definition above. That is in fact why I posted it.

I dunno. I wasn't there. I want more data before I move to judgment, even on a personal level, never mind a legal one.

But I DO believe that the use of firearms and lethal force in the defense of one's hearth and home and kindred is both legitimate and necessary under a wide variety of circumstances.

I also believe that this unfortunate homeowner - whose nighttime encounter with an idiot teenager who stupidly put himself into harms' way - should not become a Gun-Grabber's Anti-Hero poster boy, without the attempt being challenged - vigorously.

I don't know who has suggested "gun grabbing" or what that's got to do with anything, but this is about the act already committed.

When in doubt, err on the side of the homeowner.

Unfortunately an unarmed teenager who posed no threat is dead, and there's no doubt about that. What there is doubt about is whether shooting into the dark, not even knowing who or what one is shooting at, is not an act of recklessness and/or obvious lack of concern for human life.

Hard to see how it isn't.

And again, if you don't even know who or what you're shooting at, then it's impossible to make the case that you feared for your safety. Lethal force in self defense against a legitimately equally lethal threat is legally protected, but as far as I know lethal force against simply being afraid of the dark is not.

Again -- what if it had been a younger child in there? Even his own child? Nobody seems to want to touch that question.

The man had been broken into twice before. He had installed video surveillance and motion detectors in and around his home. The surveillance system alerted him and he knew what he was about to face, namely an apparently full grown man. He went to the garage door, identified a target. He wisely did not wait to be fired upon, but in fear for his life, fired at the intruder as he was legally allowed to do.

Your feelings in the matter, the age, nationality, GPA, social standing or eye color have absolutely no bearing on the case. The home owner was legally justified if he felt he or his family was in danger. The onus is on the state to prove otherwise.

How are they going to do that? Is it even possible to "prove" how a person felt in a stressful situation?

 

[Ernie S.]

>> "We know with no question the individual entered garage. Kaarma didn't know who he was, his intent or whether he was armed," Ryan said. <<
​

"Ryan" refers to Paul Ryan, the defendant's attorney. So the defendant himself admits he didn't know who was in there or whether he was armed. That makes "self defense" an empty claim.


The degree of entrapment:

>> The night of the shooting, Kaarma and his partner, Janelle Pflager, left their garage door open. Pflager left her purse in the garage "so that they would take it," she told a police officer. She also set up a video baby monitor and installed motion sensors, prosecutors said.

, walked out the front door and to the driveway.

He told investigators he heard metal on metal and without speaking fired four times &#8212; sweeping the garage with three low shots and a high fourth shot. Dede was hit in the head and the arm. << (link)​

>> The [court] documents also show that a hair stylist told police Kaarma had mentioned days earlier that he was staying up most nights hoping to catch the suspects who burglarized his home, stealing cellphones and credit cards.

&#8220;I&#8217;m just waiting to shoot some f--king kid,&#8221; he allegedly told the stylist during a visit to the local salon.

&#8220;(She) reported that the defendant was being extremely vulgar and belligerent,&#8221; the affidavit states, according to the Missoulian. &#8220;She asked the defendant to quit swearing and he said he could say 'whatever the f--k' he wanted.&#8221;

Pflager told investigators that she had placed a purse in the garage the night before the shooting so that it could be seen with the door rolled open. She placed a baby monitor in the garage and had motion sensors installed outside, court documents obtained by the paper show.

... Kaarma jumped up from the couch and grabbed the shotgun he placed near the dining room before marching out the front door so he could approach the suspects from the outside.

One of the bandits managed to dart out of the way before Kaarma trapped Dede inside and opened fire on the unarmed teen. << -- "I'm Just Waiting to Shoot Some ******* Kid"...​

This expanded story explains why the previous article mentioned that Pflager was not charged and answers the question of why that would be pointed out.

From the article linked above:

>> The castle doctrine states that when a forcible felony occurs within a home, the resident of that home has a right to defend himself. However, it also states that a person who decides to use that force must believe they are at risk of serious bodily injury or death.

Prosecutors and police see no such defense for Sunday morning&#8217;s shooting.

&#8220;The state doesn&#8217;t believe that Kaarma identified Dede as a threat to commit a forcible felony in the garage,&#8221; prosecutor Andrew Paul said in a telephone interview after the hearing. He did not speak to the boy, or even see him, before firing four times, Paul said.

&#8220;He actually sought Dede out by essentially trapping him in the garage,&#8221; Paul said, adding that every gun instructor tells students to identify the target before firing. <<​

"did
Facts not in evidence.... This may be the prosecution's case, but the defense's case will be that Kaarmah, having twice before been a victim of home burglary, secured his house the best he could and when a 3rd bandit entered his home, he responded with weapon in hand. He saw 2 subjects, one of whom retreated. The second moved in a way to cause Mr Kaarmah to shoot in fear for his life.
It is up to the state to prove otherwise to 12 people, beyond reasonable doubt. It will be a virtually impossible task in Montana.

 

[Ernie S.]

The young man could not have been "trapped inside" had he not illegally entered the garage, now, could he?

 

[Pogo]

>> "We know with no question the individual entered garage. Kaarma didn't know who he was, his intent or whether he was armed," Ryan said. <<
​

"Ryan" refers to Paul Ryan, the defendant's attorney. So the defendant himself admits he didn't know who was in there or whether he was armed. That makes "self defense" an empty claim.


The degree of entrapment:

>> The night of the shooting, Kaarma and his partner, Janelle Pflager, left their garage door open. Pflager left her purse in the garage "so that they would take it," she told a police officer. She also set up a video baby monitor and installed motion sensors, prosecutors said.

, walked out the front door and to the driveway.

He told investigators he heard metal on metal and without speaking fired four times &#8212; sweeping the garage with three low shots and a high fourth shot. Dede was hit in the head and the arm. << (link)​

>> The [court] documents also show that a hair stylist told police Kaarma had mentioned days earlier that he was staying up most nights hoping to catch the suspects who burglarized his home, stealing cellphones and credit cards.

&#8220;I&#8217;m just waiting to shoot some f--king kid,&#8221; he allegedly told the stylist during a visit to the local salon.

&#8220;(She) reported that the defendant was being extremely vulgar and belligerent,&#8221; the affidavit states, according to the Missoulian. &#8220;She asked the defendant to quit swearing and he said he could say 'whatever the f--k' he wanted.&#8221;

Pflager told investigators that she had placed a purse in the garage the night before the shooting so that it could be seen with the door rolled open. She placed a baby monitor in the garage and had motion sensors installed outside, court documents obtained by the paper show.

... Kaarma jumped up from the couch and grabbed the shotgun he placed near the dining room before marching out the front door so he could approach the suspects from the outside.

One of the bandits managed to dart out of the way before Kaarma trapped Dede inside and opened fire on the unarmed teen. << -- "I'm Just Waiting to Shoot Some ******* Kid"...​

This expanded story explains why the previous article mentioned that Pflager was not charged and answers the question of why that would be pointed out.

From the article linked above:

>> The castle doctrine states that when a forcible felony occurs within a home, the resident of that home has a right to defend himself. However, it also states that a person who decides to use that force must believe they are at risk of serious bodily injury or death.

Prosecutors and police see no such defense for Sunday morning&#8217;s shooting.

&#8220;The state doesn&#8217;t believe that Kaarma identified Dede as a threat to commit a forcible felony in the garage,&#8221; prosecutor Andrew Paul said in a telephone interview after the hearing. He did not speak to the boy, or even see him, before firing four times, Paul said.

&#8220;He actually sought Dede out by essentially trapping him in the garage,&#8221; Paul said, adding that every gun instructor tells students to identify the target before firing. <<​

"did
Facts not in evidence.... This may be the prosecution's case, but the defense's case will be that Kaarmah, having twice before been a victim of home burglary, secured his house the best he could and when a 3rd bandit entered his home, he responded with weapon in hand. He saw 2 subjects, one of whom retreated. The second moved in a way to cause Mr Kaarmah to shoot in fear for his life.

It's too late to try that story, considering what he's already put on the record -- from the criminal complaint referenced earlier:

>> According to Kaarma, he shot four times into the garage, He claimed he shot high to avoid hitting the car in the garage, however the impact points on the garage wall showed three of the four shots were low and a fourth shot was high. The impact marks also indicated that the gun was swept across the garage. Kaarrna stated the incident was seven to eight seconds and it took about two seconds to fire all four shots. He yelled to cali 911 after he fired the shots.

He stated he thought he was going to die and that the guy wouid try to get out of the garage and described thinking he could act like a caged animal. He assumed that he had a knife or a tool from the garage, however, he could not be sure because the garage was pitch dark and couldn&#8217;t see [sic] anything inside. He stated he didn&#8217;t want the male to get away and that he wanted him to be caught. He stated that the police can&#8217;t catch burglars in the act.

... Pfleger stated that after Kaarma reached the open garage door, she heard Kaarma say &#8220;hey, hey&#8221; and heard him chamber a shell into the shotgun. Pfiager then heard the male in the garage say &#8220;hey&#8221; or &#8220;Wait&#8221; and then Kaarma fired two shots into the dark garage. She realized how dark it was and went to turn on the exterior lights. *Before she turned the lights on, he fired two more shots.

... She said that she placed a purse with personal belongings that she had cataloged in the garage &#8220;so that they would take it.&#8221; Despite the fact that she had been burglarized, she left the garage door open. She set up a baby monitor in the garage and installed motion sensors.

... On April 27, 2014, Detective J. Merifield spoke with Felene Sherbondy. Felene called to report that the Defendant was in Great Clips on August 23, 2014. When Felene asked the Defendant how he was doing, the Defendant replied: just waiting to shoot some ******* kid.&#8221; He told the stylists that he had been waiting up for three nights his shotgun to shoot &#8220;some ******* kid.&#8221;[/QUOTE]

I highlighted some parts in blue that are gonna make it pretty difficult to squirm "self defense" when they've already admitted that they set a trap and baited it. The girlfriend's actions also explain why the original article mentioned that she was not charged. Did you read that passage and wonder, "why would she be charged?" I did. Now we know why -- accessory. She set the bait. Apparently they had to do this for three days to get a result.

It also appears to make the whole act premeditated, which is why the charge is "deliberate" homicide as opposed to one of the lesser degrees.

I don't know what country you live in but I don't live in one where you can set a trap and then blast a shotgun into the dark and let the brains fall where they may and then carp about "self defense" when you set up the whole thing in the first place. That's insane. The phrase "shoot first, ask questions later" isn't a maxim-- it's a criticism.

It is up to the state to prove otherwise to 12 people, beyond reasonable doubt. It will be a virtually impossible task in Montana.

Ever spent time in Montana? I have, and I don't get that impression at all. What this guy did doesn't fit the Big Sky spirit in the slightest. Nor that of America.

 

[Pogo]

The young man could not have been "trapped inside" had he not illegally entered the garage, now, could he?

He also could not have been trapped inside had the homeowner not set a trap (for three days no less*) and then gone outside to a sniper position at the only exit available -- as opposed to taking a position at the house entrance.

In other words he took an offensive position -- not a defensive one. He admitted to it in the criminal complaint, and even bragged about it while setting it up.

Hard to squirm out of that.


(* actually correction: the trap may have been set up to seven days; the reported conversation took place April 23 (assuming "August 23", which hasn't happened yet, means April) and Kaarma told the hairdresser on that date that he'd been lying in wait already for three days, then the incident finally happened four days later.)

 

[Dr Grump]

America was always like this. Hell when I was a kid, if you broke into someone's home and got shot, they rarely found your corpse. If you shot an intruder and did happen to call the police to get the body out of your house, they would ask a couple of questions, ask you if you wanted a drink and cart the body off. I saw it happen. In Connecticut, of all places. That was in 1966.

What a great place to live!!

NOT....

 

[Pogo]

America was always like this. Hell when I was a kid, if you broke into someone's home and got shot, they rarely found your corpse. If you shot an intruder and did happen to call the police to get the body out of your house, they would ask a couple of questions, ask you if you wanted a drink and cart the body off. I saw it happen. In Connecticut, of all places. That was in 1966.

What a great place to live!!

NOT....

We certainly have more than our share of fiction writers and fantasists...

 

[Dr Grump]

The man had been broken into twice before. He had installed video surveillance and motion detectors in and around his home. The surveillance system alerted him and he knew what he was about to face, namely an apparently full grown man.

Why didn't he just stay inside, with his shotgun by his side and call the cops?

 

[Pogo]

The man had been broken into twice before. He had installed video surveillance and motion detectors in and around his home. The surveillance system alerted him and he knew what he was about to face, namely an apparently full grown man.

Why didn't he just stay inside, with his shotgun by his side and call the cops?

I would add, if he did need to shoot in supposed "self defense" -- why wouldn't he shoot in a direction that would drive the intruder AWAY FROM the garage... rather than shooting INTO the garage, thereby trapping him inside it, i.e. ensuring he didn't have an exit?

That's where his "self-defense" mockery gets laughed out of court.

 

[Esmeralda]

This is why you gun grabbers are regarded as loons and not taken seriously. You prattle off advice like warning shots which are illegal. Compare bums on the street to someone in the house. Then when you do bring up a subject with some validity as bolded above, you never actually talk about it. You just devolve into accusations and name calling.

He wasn't in the house, he was in the garage. He never attempted to enter the house. All the rest of your rant is just that: a mindless rant.

Exactly. The owner of the garage attached to the house on the property the bad guy crossed to break into had no right to defend it. You hate guns. We get it Leftytoon.

The "bad guy"? An unarmed teenager doing a prank? Unbelieveable. You LOVE guns, well beyond reason: we get that. Sicko.

 

[Esmeralda]

>> "We know with no question the individual entered garage. Kaarma didn't know who he was, his intent or whether he was armed," Ryan said. <<
​

"Ryan" refers to Paul Ryan, the defendant's attorney. So the defendant himself admits he didn't know who was in there or whether he was armed. That makes "self defense" an empty claim.


The degree of entrapment:

>> The night of the shooting, Kaarma and his partner, Janelle Pflager, left their garage door open. Pflager left her purse in the garage "so that they would take it," she told a police officer. She also set up a video baby monitor and installed motion sensors, prosecutors said.

, walked out the front door and to the driveway.

He told investigators he heard metal on metal and without speaking fired four times — sweeping the garage with three low shots and a high fourth shot. Dede was hit in the head and the arm. << (link)​

>> The [court] documents also show that a hair stylist told police Kaarma had mentioned days earlier that he was staying up most nights hoping to catch the suspects who burglarized his home, stealing cellphones and credit cards.

“I’m just waiting to shoot some f--king kid,” he allegedly told the stylist during a visit to the local salon.

“(She) reported that the defendant was being extremely vulgar and belligerent,” the affidavit states, according to the Missoulian. “She asked the defendant to quit swearing and he said he could say 'whatever the f--k' he wanted.”

Pflager told investigators that she had placed a purse in the garage the night before the shooting so that it could be seen with the door rolled open. She placed a baby monitor in the garage and had motion sensors installed outside, court documents obtained by the paper show.

... Kaarma jumped up from the couch and grabbed the shotgun he placed near the dining room before marching out the front door so he could approach the suspects from the outside.

One of the bandits managed to dart out of the way before Kaarma trapped Dede inside and opened fire on the unarmed teen. << -- "I'm Just Waiting to Shoot Some ******* Kid"...​

This expanded story explains why the previous article mentioned that Pflager was not charged and answers the question of why that would be pointed out.

From the article linked above:

>> The castle doctrine states that when a forcible felony occurs within a home, the resident of that home has a right to defend himself. However, it also states that a person who decides to use that force must believe they are at risk of serious bodily injury or death.
Prosecutors and police see no such defense for Sunday morning’s shooting.

“The state doesn’t believe that Kaarma identified Dede as a threat to commit a forcible felony in the garage,” prosecutor Andrew Paul said in a telephone interview after the hearing. He did not speak to the boy, or even see him, before firing four times, Paul said.

“He actually sought Dede out by essentially trapping him in the garage,” Paul said, adding that every gun instructor tells students to identify the target before firing. <<​

There was no "forcible" entry. There was no discernable "risk of serious bodily injury or death."

 

[Pogo]

>> "We know with no question the individual entered garage. Kaarma didn't know who he was, his intent or whether he was armed," Ryan said. <<
​

"Ryan" refers to Paul Ryan, the defendant's attorney. So the defendant himself admits he didn't know who was in there or whether he was armed. That makes "self defense" an empty claim.


The degree of entrapment:

>> The night of the shooting, Kaarma and his partner, Janelle Pflager, left their garage door open. Pflager left her purse in the garage "so that they would take it," she told a police officer. She also set up a video baby monitor and installed motion sensors, prosecutors said.

, walked out the front door and to the driveway.

He told investigators he heard metal on metal and without speaking fired four times — sweeping the garage with three low shots and a high fourth shot. Dede was hit in the head and the arm. << (link)​

>> The [court] documents also show that a hair stylist told police Kaarma had mentioned days earlier that he was staying up most nights hoping to catch the suspects who burglarized his home, stealing cellphones and credit cards.

“I’m just waiting to shoot some f--king kid,” he allegedly told the stylist during a visit to the local salon.

“(She) reported that the defendant was being extremely vulgar and belligerent,” the affidavit states, according to the Missoulian. “She asked the defendant to quit swearing and he said he could say 'whatever the f--k' he wanted.”

Pflager told investigators that she had placed a purse in the garage the night before the shooting so that it could be seen with the door rolled open. She placed a baby monitor in the garage and had motion sensors installed outside, court documents obtained by the paper show.

... Kaarma jumped up from the couch and grabbed the shotgun he placed near the dining room before marching out the front door so he could approach the suspects from the outside.

One of the bandits managed to dart out of the way before Kaarma trapped Dede inside and opened fire on the unarmed teen. << -- "I'm Just Waiting to Shoot Some ******* Kid"...​

This expanded story explains why the previous article mentioned that Pflager was not charged and answers the question of why that would be pointed out.

From the article linked above:

>> The castle doctrine states that when a forcible felony occurs within a home, the resident of that home has a right to defend himself. However, it also states that a person who decides to use that force must believe they are at risk of serious bodily injury or death.
Prosecutors and police see no such defense for Sunday morning’s shooting.

“The state doesn’t believe that Kaarma identified Dede as a threat to commit a forcible felony in the garage,” prosecutor Andrew Paul said in a telephone interview after the hearing. He did not speak to the boy, or even see him, before firing four times, Paul said.

“He actually sought Dede out by essentially trapping him in the garage,” Paul said, adding that every gun instructor tells students to identify the target before firing. <<​

There was no "forcible" entry. There was no discernable "risk of serious bodily injury or death."

And just to complete the circle, it wasn't even within the home.
Strike three, he's out.

 

[Esmeralda]

The young man could not have been "trapped inside" had he not illegally entered the garage, now, could he?

^^^ LOL....example of rightwing logic. If you go into any environment, legally or not, and cannot get out, you are trapped there.

 

[Esmeralda]

The man had been broken into twice before. He had installed video surveillance and motion detectors in and around his home. The surveillance system alerted him and he knew what he was about to face, namely an apparently full grown man.

Why didn't he just stay inside, with his shotgun by his side and call the cops?

EXACTLY!!!

 

[Geaux4it]

The man had been broken into twice before. He had installed video surveillance and motion detectors in and around his home. The surveillance system alerted him and he knew what he was about to face, namely an apparently full grown man.

Why didn't he just stay inside, with his shotgun by his side and call the cops?

Because when seconds count the cops are minutes away. Furthermore, the cops have no legal obligation to respond with aid.

If your dumb enough to walk into someones personal property, your dumb enough to be shot. You know, it's really not all that difficult avoiding being shot like this.

-Geaux

 

[Esmeralda]

The man had been broken into twice before. He had installed video surveillance and motion detectors in and around his home. The surveillance system alerted him and he knew what he was about to face, namely an apparently full grown man.

Why didn't he just stay inside, with his shotgun by his side and call the cops?

Because when seconds count the cops are minutes away. Furthermore, the cops have no legal obligation to respond with aid.

If your dumb enough to walk into someones personal property, your dumb enough to be shot. You know, it's really not all that difficult avoiding being shot like this.

-Geaux

So, now people deserve to be shot for being dumb? And you people say you aren't blood thirsty.

 

[Geaux4it]

Why didn't he just stay inside, with his shotgun by his side and call the cops?

Because when seconds count the cops are minutes away. Furthermore, the cops have no legal obligation to respond with aid.

If your dumb enough to walk into someones personal property, your dumb enough to be shot. You know, it's really not all that difficult avoiding being shot like this.

-Geaux

So, now people deserve to be shot for being dumb? And you people say you aren't blood thirsty.

Yes, you should be shot if you're dumb enough to walk into someones personal property. I know the libs teach their kids not to stand under trees during a T-Storm, and not to cross the street without looking, I just know they can also teach them that walking into someones property could also deliver the same consequences as a result of poor decision making

-Geaux

 

[Iceweasel]

"Self defense" is in your own desperation. It's not part of the story. For the umpteenth time, in order to defend yourself, there must exist a threat your're defending yourself from. No such threat existed here, therefore there is no possible self-defense legal defense that need be proven or disproven. Because that (legal) defense has no basis.

If someone breaks in then they are a threat. You can be as wrong as you want for as long as you want but it won't change anything. Go ahead and test the theory out for yourself and get back to us. If you can.

 

[Geaux4it]

Thank goodness for the Castle Doctrine

-Geaux

=====================================

Each state differs in the way it incorporates the castle doctrine into its laws, what premises are covered (abode only, or other places too), what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance is required before deadly force can be used, etc.

Typical conditions that apply to some castle doctrine laws include:[citation needed]

An intruder must be making an attempt (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business, or vehicle.
The intruder must be acting unlawfully (the castle doctrine does not allow a right to use force against officers of the law, acting in the course of their legal duties).
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home. Some states apply the Castle Doctrine if the occupant(s) of the home reasonably believe the intruder intends to commit a lesser felony such as arson or burglary.
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion; or, provoked/instigated an intruder's threat or use of deadly force.